2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumConfirmed: Sanders is selling a fantasy agenda of epic proportions
By Stephen Stromberg May 9 at 1:49 PM
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has attracted a passionate following because he is selling his followers a fantasy. And not just any fantasy but one of epic proportions. A group of respected, nonpartisan experts offered the public a sense of the scale on Monday, releasing the most thorough analysis yet on Sanderss plan and finding that it is profoundly flawed. Before the Democrats agree to adopt his agenda, a price they might pay to get him to end his doomed campaign, they should be clear about what they are signing onto.
The analysts found that Sanderss program is very progressive, jacking up taxes massively on the rich and providing a range of new benefits to the poor. Though every working person would face higher payroll taxes, the value of these benefits would leave 95 percent of households better off. They granted Sanders that his single-payer health system, in which the government would pay for everyones care and demand no co-payments or other cost-sharing, would expand health-care access and cut the growth of health-care costs, and they made aggressive assumptions about how much the new system would reduce drug and other prices.
But there is a massive catch. Sanderss assurance that he has a plan to pay for every spending program he has introduced to date is wrong. And not just wrong, but extravagantly so. Even with his large tax increases, Sanders would fall $18 trillion short over just 10 years. Factoring in interest costs, his plan would add $21 trillion to the debt over a decade. That is more than the roughly $19 trillion the Treasury already owes. And the picture would probably get much worse as time went on. Expanding Social Security, for example, would become much more expensive as more people retired.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/05/09/confirmed-sanders-is-selling-a-fantasy-agenda/
LexVegas
(6,091 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)He couldn't answer a simple question with a real answer.
Instead he started talking about protest marches and the
need for political revolution.
That's why Hillary is crushing him
in the primaries and 3 million more voters
preferred her.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Well actually, you know, theres great fact checking done on this in the New York Times, which I hold as a higher standard of a paper I think most New Yorkers hold the Times a little bit higher than the Daily News and New York Post. But they fact checked this and they basically said that he was right on this. You know the point if you read the entire transcript, which is very long, took about 45 minutes to read. He went into detail about how the determination of how to break up the big banks lies within Congress or the president, and the president gives authority to the Fed.
http://usuncut.com/politics/ny-daily-news-argument-destroyed-cnn/
You have to give credit to the Hillary minions who misrepresented the content of the interview. They convinced easily manipulable people like yourself that he couldn't explain his policy.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)on the capital when there were votes scheduled.
That was his solution to getting his agenda thru
congress.
Obviously the majority of Democratic primary voters felt the same way.
They didn't trust his ideas enough to vote for him.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)by Democratic Party politicians who have tacked rightward chasing corporate cash and told them that's the best they can expect.
Bernie proved that you can run a campaign withot selling your sell to Wall Street. And a a very large proportion of primary voters voted for him.
Hillary fans have to keep repeating her less than impressive lead over Bernie because they see how weak her victories have been over a aging socialist who a year or so ago was 60 points behind.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)He didn't get enough votes to win.
And her "less than impressive lead over Bernie"
is more than double the lead Obama had
on Hillary in 2008.
He got crushed.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)That is not crushed, especially when an international celebrity is running against an aged socialist who had virtually no recognition beyond his state at the start. She should be winning by a 30% or 40% margin.
And by the way, she was defeated in 2008 by another virtually unknown Senator from Illinois.
She is weak, weak, weak!
griffi94
(3,733 posts)hundreds more delegates and millions more votes.
Scoreboard.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)The only poll that counts is in November, but her weakness against Trump is frightening.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)that's just speculation.
Right now.
The reality is.
Hillary is winning.
Bernie lost. He's not going to be president
he's not even going to be a nominee for president.
Scoreboard.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)consider recent polls of two of Florida's swingiest legislative swing districts:
***An April 24-28 EMC Research (MoE =/1 4.9 percent) of Florida House District 69 in Pinellas County - represented currently by Republican Kathleen Peters of South Pasadena and won twice by Barack Obama - found Trump with 48 percent support and Clinton with 44 percent. Fifty-eight percent of voters in that swing district had an unfavorable view of Trump, and 58 percent had an unfavorable view of Clinton.
***A March 17-21 EMC poll (MoE =/- 5.6 percent) of state Sen. District 24 - represented by Republican Jeff Brandes of St. Pete, including parts of Pinellas and Hillsborough County, and won narrowly by Obama twice and comfortably by Charlie Crist in 2014 - showed Trump beating Clinton in that district 49 percent to 41 percent.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/exhibits-a-and-b-on-why-donald-trump-may-win-florida/2276083
griffi94
(3,733 posts)That's an opinion poll.
And it's for an election that doesn't happen til November.
Neither of the nominees have started to fully campaign yet.
Hillary is starting to focus on Trump but that's only been in the last
couple of weeks.
Here's a checkable fact.
Hillary is ahead of Bernie by an insurmountable
amount of pledged delegates and millions more votes.
Scoreboard.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)you may reach Nirvana.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)CLINTON-TRUMP CLOSE IN FLORIDA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY SWING STATE POLL FINDS
---
FLORIDA: Clinton 43 Trump 42; Sanders 44 Trump 42
OHIO: Clinton 39 Trump 43; Sanders 43 Trump 41
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 43 Trump 42; Sanders 47 Trump 41
In a race marked by wide gender, age and racial gaps, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump are running neck and neck in the key presidential Swing States of Florida, Ohio and
Pennsylvania, but Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont runs stronger against the likely Republican
nominee, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today. https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/ps/ps05102016_Sw4b42d.pdf
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Thank You Human101948. NYDN interview has been debunked by not only the NY Times, Rolling Stone, Robert Reich, Bill Moyers, Juan Gonsalves. Hillary minions push this lie knowing that Senator Sanders introduced the Bill Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Mon May 9, 2016, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Thanks, seabeyond.
padfun
(1,787 posts)to do what EVERY friggin advanced country in the world has already done.
It's a sad commentary on the brain trust of the USA.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)The top 1% pay an effective tax rate of 22.8%
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
Perpetuating lies simply to gain favor with low-information voters (or being a low-information voter and perpetuating falsehoods) does you a disservice. When people realize you are lying, they reject everything you say - even things which are true.
It's always a better policy to argue the real issue hoenstly, rather than lying about it to try to curry favor with people who do not understand an issue.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)lookpholes that they pay rich attorneys to get around that is laughing matter to them. The Panama Papers are just the tip of the iceburg. Much of the American iceburg is in Delaware.
Get off your high horse. This is total Bull.
And I don't need to "curry favor" with any anonymous internet poster...you flatter yourself.
padfun
(1,787 posts)They bought and paid for this system. And they own Congress. We are just the plebes.
And the Panama Papers ARE just the tip. Money isn't invested anymore. It is stored offshore. This wont be changed easily if at all.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)of course every one knows the system is rigged. They just don't like to be reminded...either because they are part of it, or they will never be part of it.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Robert Reich stated what is needed now is a bold vision not the status quo. Exit polls show American voters want change.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html
Corporate666
(587 posts)It is simply a lie to say that every advanced country in the world has done what Sanders wants to do.
Most countries do not have "free" college. The very few that do are not even in the same league as the USA higher educational system.
Most countries do not have single payer health care.
Most countries do not break up banks.
Most countries do not have a "living wage" as the minimum wage.
Most countries do not have protectionist trade agreements in place.
You render your post worthless when it is intellectually dishonest.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Many countries indite their bankers, do not believe in death penalties, have single payer, and jobs include 2 months vacation paid, maternity and paternity paid leave and all this is included in wages, the value of these benefits bring wages well above $20/hr. Yes, they are taxed higher, bring down wage value to 15-17/hr. Colleges are free, they just dont force students to pay for football programs thru tuition. Only private schools charge.
I have lived in Europe, asia and Aus. All are better cared for, educated and happier than US citizens and they have a voice in their governments.
Please stop waving the flag and educate yourself
dsc
(52,166 posts)and arguably not our secondary system. Post secondary our education system is second to none in terms of quality. Secondary we educate and test way more of our population than even Europeans do at the high school level.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Our educational system is sorely inadequate. Every state has cut school budgets to pay for stadiums and special interest projects, teachers are not allowed to teach anything but revisionist history. Our higher ed does not measure up to Europe's or Asia's, even our trade schools are sad. The Kochs have influenced curriculum's, religious zealots forbid reality being taught, even english lit is finding it hard to be funded. Colleges are now for profit corporations that protect rapists, athletes and donors and silence objectors. The wise educated professors are dying off and being replaced by opinionated uneducated assholes. Good teachers are being shut down for fear the truths may inspire kids to fight for their rights.
How many 20 somethings today cannot spell, or cannot read cursive, believe everything they read online or see in corporate news.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Impossible.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)*6.99 a minute will be charged to your phone bill*
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Where have you been bro?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And I've never called one, I just remember the commercials.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Get hold of yourself. This is an election not a porn convention...although...oh, never mind.
I'd self-delete, "King", if I were you.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)900 numbers pushed fantasies and so does Sanders. Not sure how that equals sexist.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)a minute are not political. Get my drift? See the stupidity? Let me enlighten you.
It's porn numbers that allow mostly men to, um, visit, King.
Do you have a 900 number for Sanders Fantasy Voters?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)As evidenced by the actual budget numbers. Like 900 numbers, Sanders pushes good things, but a rude shock would come with the bill.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)the rest of the industrialized world, as well as some who we consider Banana Republics, is to require the rich and the Corporations to pay their fair share. Since we are so used to them getting off scot free, it doesn't dawn on the Peasants (that would be those of us on an internet site) that there is any other way.
I've touted the timeless writing of socrates in Platos's Cave many times, and you've inspired me to do it again. Thanks. This is a short version as a kind of cartoon, as most who aren't aware have a very short attention span.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
Post removed
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)for us to achieve real progress by splitting us apart and also giving more fuel to those who say the liberals can't be trusted.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Yep, enough said.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)in the Trump campaign: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-minimium-wage-hike-reversal
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Why can't they kiss the feet of freedom (the rich) and why do they hate war? Don't they know what the Democratic Republican Party stands for?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)BootinUp
(47,179 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)might actually have to pay their fair share. I'm no economist, but given the obscene numbers I've seen, it should allow us to be at least on par with the bottom four of the "Industrialized Nations" and above many non-industrialized nations.
And also, shore up the Social Security fund by increasing the convenient cap for the wealthy.
What are you doing on a Democratic site? I think you have the wrong url here.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That's the little kink in the proposal. There are plenty of ways to pay for these unicorns and ponies that most industrialized nations enjoy as a right.
Here in the good 'ol USA we have people like you and yours playing Chicken Little...the sky is falling, the sky is falling...when in reality, it's the rich and the corporations daring us to meddle in their comfy financial nest.
Then there is the MIC, but that's another issue...appropriate, but don't want to stress out the post here into too many areas of thought.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)itself, I'd be a millionaire.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Do you not agree that there is obscene amounts of money being shoveled into
"legal" tax shelters and that many get off tax free? Or the SS tax break at only $250,000? Or do you think they just willingly pay what the charts tell them...like the peasants do.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)But he's not politically correct...I get that. But the genie will not go back into the bottle. So, time will tell. He didn't get filthy rich in the past 20 years. What does he know?
It's only a matter of time. Impeachment, at the very least, awaits Ms. Golden Sacks if she can fend off Trumps attacks...and no, I'm not sorry. She's pushed it way over the limit.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)170 Economists Endorse Bernie Sanders' Plan to reform Wall Street and rein in Greed:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And everything in his policy agenda polls widely popular across the political spectrum.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)except for anti-trade which is a repuke policy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Except a neo-conservative foreign policy and whatever Wall Street has paid her to do.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)as best it's possible to determine is identical or worse than Clinton's. The rest is simply wishful thinking.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)until all the lights are green to start. That's what Leaders do. They see a better future, and communicate it to others who join them and move forward. That's the Yes, we can.
The No, it's too Hard folks, well they just stay where they are...and sucks to be anyone lower down the pecking order.
Same for war. It's easy to send your sons and daughters out to pound sand and maybe not return than to do the harder work of diplomacy, respect, compromise and other aspects the US as World Emperor does not stoop to. We have drones, you know.
Any element of progress started in someone's mind...when it was not possible. They say that the solution to a problem never resides in the problem itself, but must originate in another solution.
That would be what is required of a Leader. HRC is one of the latter..."Let's just be happy with what we have and I've got that down."
Actor
(626 posts)Nobody has EVER answered that.
beastie boy
(9,404 posts)much higher taxes across the board. There is none in the US.
BTW, give credit to Obama's incrementalism here. We are now half way closer to single payer now than we were five years ago.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He isn't a nuts and bolts guy. He's done well for himself making a living.
Actor
(626 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And stable lifestyle. I didn't realize that was controversial.
sheshe2
(83,860 posts)also get prime healthcare for life?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)to make them look larger, then you don't have a point. Why can't they just say how much they think it will cost without multiplying it by ten to make it falsely appear an order of magnitude larger?
Zynx
(21,328 posts)This is prudent since certain programs hit in different years and certain tax plans have timing issues as well.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)sigh
insta8er
(960 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)As Freud saw it, groups amplify emotions and inhibit critical thinking. When people come together in numbers, they are more likely to be swept up in a shared fear or to be enthused by a common faith than they are to engage in reasoned problem solving. For Freud, group membership is a kind of love that makes people vulnerable and often spells trouble.
Groups, he observed, are eager to follow not those who present the most accurate picture of reality, but those who most clearly reflect group members cherished ideals. And the more distressing the groups reality is, the more those ideals became divorced from it.
(more)
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)simple and to the point.
She told Obama similar in 08 about ACA.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/18/1471309/-Hillary-No-We-Can-t
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Of all the bullshit listed in this article, only 3 sentences reference an actual dollar amount, with nothing to back it up other than to post the "trillion" number. Yeah, I believe the author of this article. NOT!!!!!!
Rass
(112 posts)Those damn Europeans with their universal healthcare and free schools! They should know that it is impossible! We need that money for war and being the world police. That's freedom fries not french fries!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)by someone.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)CONFIRMED by someone....who is trying to protect their billions and their friends' billions.
rock
(13,218 posts)If you're going to lie in politics, lie big.
coyote
(1,561 posts)Somehow countries in Europe are able to provide and manage the programs that Bernie is offering.
Enjoy the the koolaid.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)that during campaigns, a LOT of promises are made but not kept. Even by saintly Bernie.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)go about making any of it a reality.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Yeah: Sanders is ahead of the Inevitable Lady. Something to do with consistency in word, trust and favorability, and actually caring about blue-collar jobs.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Prof. Krugman has been saying for some time that the Sanders plan did not add up and Prof. Krugman was correct http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders plan isnt just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It's an idea of what we could be. Even if we can't get there quickly, with the current Congress, in the span of one presidency, my favorite thing about Bernie is that he gives us a vision of where he'd like to see the US. What our potential future could be. I'm a fan of long term thinking.
People need to see this as a vision or a goal rather than as a specific plan for his first four years of office.
I am editing to add another thought. Some of the things Bernie is paying for we do pay for already, just in different ways from how we would in the future. We pay TONS in this country for healthcare. We don't need to pay more money. We need to collect the same amount of money we are already collecting in a different way and spend it in a more fair way. It isn't always about collecting more money.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)incremental change towards something progressive(since actually achieving it is akin to birthing unicorns), and come out and own that you like the system we have? If its impossible to fund these things, then why not admit that there is no incremental change that is going to take us there?
People should quit talking out of both sides of their mouths, on the one side, saying we need Hillary because she understands how to change the system incrementally and anything bigger is a pipe dream, and on the other side, taking turns telling us either why our current system should not be changed..."we need free trade" not fair trade apparently), "Wall Street are job creators", "the rich pay their fair share!." Yes, I've heard all of those arguments here.
I'll give you this much, with enough money and corporate water-carriers to make it impossible, big change will definitely remain so. If that's what you're into, and I suspect it is, then good job!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
Post removed
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-himmelstein/the-urban-institutes-attack-on-single-payer-ridiculous-assumptions-yield-ridiculous-estimates_b_9876640.html
Bottom line, it was just another incomplete analysis.
In the end, ANY ambitious plan begins with a goal, and a rough plan about how to get there, and projections about the future, which, by definition, includes assumptions and uncertainties. The exact details would be subject to negotiation at the start, and modification in the future, just like everything else.